Being a feminist, I don’t like watching women boxing at the Olympics. (I’ll explain this more in a moment.
However, I followed with interest the debate over the Italian boxer Angela Carini pulling out after just 46 seconds into her Olympic boxing match. She did so after sustaining hard blows from her Algerian opponent Imane Khelif, who apparently suffers from Differences of Sex Development (DSD or intersex), which is when there is a discrepancy between the external (outside) genitals and the internal (inside) genitals).
Hence, despite having been raised as a girl, Khelif appears to have blood testosterone levels in the male range, and even XY sex chromosomes.
I do not believe that men and women can compete fairly in sporting contests. Nevertheless, the case of Imane Khelif seems to be unique and complicated; it cannot be compared with the case of Lia Thomas, who is simply a biological man with no congenital conditions, identifying as a woman.
However, my problem with the Khelif-Carini debate is not primarily about the eligibility of the Algerian boxer, but more about whether women should compete in an aggressive full-contact sport such as boxing.
Let’s suppose, for a moment, that Khelif had XX chromosomes. Would it have been better? Is it progress to watch two women punching each other and causing violent, traumatic brain (and other) injuries?
The so-called progressive “feminists” want to claim that there is no difference between men and women and that women can physically do everything that men do. Progressive feminists shout against the “patriarchy” but what they really want is to abandon their woman’s nature and ultimately become like men. They shout “death to the patriarchy” but, when they say it, they mean that they want to put an end to the traditional family and to motherhood.
Ironically, progressive “feminists” are the real promoter of “toxic masculinity”; they are ones who want to emulate only the aggressive aspects of the patriarchy. In addition, they say that they want to substitute the patriarchy with matriarchy, believing that the latter is simply a system in which women hold primary positions of “power” and “strength,” and not a means to build a community through nurture and love.
What do I mean by all this? I certainly don’t mean that women should not compete in sports. I simply want to stress that there is a woman’s nature, and we should gladly embrace it.
Sports such as boxing are too physically violent and, I think, repress the nurturing nature of a woman. This does not mean that women are less able than men. On the contrary, nurture, care, and love are strengths that characterize what a woman is and why they are pillars of a community.
I am happy that Italian boxer Carini pulled out after fearing permanent injuries, as she was pummeled by powerful and debilitating blows. And, because of the intersex condition, I don’t know if Algerian boxer Khelif is eligible or not to compete in women’s boxing.
But I do know that as much as men should never hit women, it is just as upsetting and distressing to me to see women punching other women, forgetting what a woman is while doing so.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
And we hear that the International Olympic Committee is brain-dead on this issue.
The IOC rejects the International Boxing Association (IBA) disqualification, and announces that a fallacy cannot be righted unless a paper-thin passport can be bested by unanimous endorsement of scientific evidence….
By IOC edict, an XY chromosome does not qualify as scientific fact! All bow to Vladimir Lenin, the prophet of woke and gender-theory post-modernity. Said he: “If the facts don’t fit the theory, then too bad for the facts.”
Galileo weeps.
Exactly how I feel. As an old lady I am shocked that women would want to hit, punch and knock out each other. Let us reach out in love and nurture. Not a modern thought? You bet, but a true one. Let us walk in peace and teach other ladies the more excellent way.
I think the same but for both women and men!! Why is fighting with aim to knock out even still considered sport for anyone. Wrestling maybe o.k. because serious injury is not required to win. Watching boxing always reminds me of how far humans still have to go in our evolution. No winners here.
In boxing, professional or otherwise, fairness requires matching classes of relative physiological strength such that competition is both fair and reasonably safe. Mismatching can and does lead to significant injuries. Recall that volleyballer Payton McNabb (a 17 y/o) was struck in the face and rendered consciousness. The ball was spiked with such great force (estimated at 70 mph) by a transgendered female (biological male with XY chromosomes) that Payton was permanently partially paralyzed.
Swyers Syndrome, which Khelif claimed he has, is only one of many types of Differences of Sexual Development (DSDs). In an Explainer written by Reuters[1], Australian female boxer Tiana Echegaray said, “If you’re talking about fighting an actual man, then no, I’m not cool with fighting a man.” In the same article, Australian boxer Caitlin Parker said, “Biologically, genetically, they’re going to have more advantages, and in combat sports, it can be dangerous.” **Dangerous** is the keyword in this debate.
Whether or not Imane Khelif was a female is irrelevant when it comes to contact sports. Here are some valid reasons:
1). Women’s sports categories exist in most sports in recognition of the clear advantage that going through male puberty gives an athlete. Swyer females with XY chromosomes go through **male puberty**.
2). As a result of #1 above, their physical strength is that of a biological male, regardless of their reproductive organs.
3). That XY advantage is not just through higher testosterone levels, but also in muscle mass, skeletal advantage, and faster twitch muscles.
4). A study published in the journal Sports Medicine in 2020[2] found that “strength, lean body mass, muscle size, and bone density are only trivially affected” by the testosterone suppression medications that transgendered biological males use to compete in female Olympic sports. Note that the two DSD boxers in this year’s Olympics had no testosterone suppression at all.
Two more studies show the same results.
One was a 2021 study published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine[3]. The second was a 2024 paper by the Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports[4] that concluded that the Olympic Committee’s framework for transgender competitors “does not protect fairness for female athletes.”
The above are all valid reasons why Imane Khelif’s claim that she is a biological woman is 100% irrelevant to the topic of her competing in the women’s boxing division. In combat sports such as boxing, this can lead to serious safety issues.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/sports/olympics/olympics-dsd-rules-focus-womens-boxing-2024-07-31/
[2] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3
[3] https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/15/865
[4] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/sms.14581
“Swyers Syndrome, which Khelif claimed he has”
******
I haven’t seen that in the news. Do you know where you read that? Thank you.
I should probably have chosen my words more carefully. Thus: “Swyers Syndrome, which DNA test results indicate Khelif has.”
According to the Cleveland Clinic, there are 8 different types of DSDs (https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/disorders-of-sexual-development). If one reads the description of each, it becomes clear that Swyer Syndrome most closely fits Khelif’s DNA test results by the IBA. This would also be the logic behind news articles describing her as having Swyers.
For example:
https://www.essentiallysports.com/boxing-news-target-of-vicious-online-slander-after-first-round-win-at-paris-olympics-two-thousand-and-twenty-fourwhat-is-disgraced-boxer-imane-khelif-s-rare-genetic-condition-swyer-syndrome/
https://www.marca.com/en/boxing/2024/08/01/66abb02f46163faa798b45c7.html
https://indianexpress.com/article/health-wellness/paris-olympics-row-imane-khelif-gender-sex-development-disorder-9492428/
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/258473/boxer-with-male-chromosomes-defeats-woman-boxer-in-46-second-olympic-fight
One other thing. Males have higher hemoglobin levels. Our ability to engage in sustained exertion is higher.
While (just like the author) I also dislike female boxing, I disagree with most of what she wrote. For example, I do believe that martial arts like jiu-jitsu or kendo are very suitable for women. Unlike those arts, boxing is very brutal and personally I would not like someone to target my face non-stop.
As for the Algerian boxer, they have a male set of chromosomes and it makes him a male for a sport at least, no matter how the person has been brought up. Also, he has a typical male body i.e. skeletal frame, muscles etc. of unmistakable masculine type and he moves like a male too. There are huge females in sports like Gabi Garica who is even bigger than an average male but she still has a female body – with huge muscles but still of a female type – and it is possible for a smaller fighter with superior skills to take her down. But a male naturally has a much more powerful body which is capable of dealing a blow which cannot be even remotely compared with a female’s.
The author: “Sports such as boxing are too physically violent and, I think, repress the nurturing nature of a woman.”
Again, I disagree, take a cat who defends her kittens. Nurture and violence are not opposing if a violence defends a nurture. As I said, I just think that females are better suited to cat-like “violent” sports.
The author: “Let’s suppose, for a moment, that Khelif had XX chromosomes. Would it have been better? Is it progress to watch two women punching each other and causing violent, traumatic brain (and other) injuries?”
Yes, it would. First, it would mean she is a female. Second, her body would be different from what it is now. Third, women are free to engage in boxing with each other if they wish to do so. It is their business. While it is unpleasant to watch (for me) two female boxers are equal and there is no deception involved. It is not a male beating a female, as it was a case with the Algerian boxer. Because the boxer looks like a male with a powerful male body and has a male set of chromosomes all the world beheld the sight of a male beating a woman up and being rewarded for it. This is why it was so shocking. This is a total symbolic undoing of our civilization, in particular an attack on women.
To be fair, I initially understood from the news that the Algerian boxer had male chromosomes & that had disqualified him from competition earlier. And that indeed may be the case. But we actually don’t know all the facts or what the testing protocols were.
So maybe it’s best to wait & see.
It’s a shame that this individual’s anatomy & personal medical information’s become a matter of public debate. It seems sad & disrespectful. The IOC should have handled all this differently.
If you’re born say in rural Algeria you might not have all the bells & whistles at your local healthcare facility, nor specialists who could catch anomalies that might go unnoticed otherwise.
I don’t get boxing in the first place. Self defense martial arts? Sure. Boxing, not so much.
The entire premise of normalizing sexual deviance is nuts to begin with. And while women pummeling each other in a boxing match is clearly beneath the dignity of females, we need to also ask ourselves what are we doing sending women into combat – the saddest part of which is to watch children embracing a mother returning home from one of the many wars our country seems so eager to get entangled in.
Re: Deacon Peitler – Definitely agree. Saw a bumper sticker once that said, “Real men don’t send their women to war.”
Couldn’t agree more.
“And while women pummeling each other in a boxing match is clearly beneath the dignity of females, we need to also ask ourselves what are we doing sending women into combat”
Normalizing combat sports for women is conditioning for society to accept women coming home in body bags.
The door to women in combat was pried opened as soon as females started getting stars on their epaulettes.
Women with chevrons will experience the worst horrors of war, and if I’m not being clear, I mean what the invading Soviets did to German women.
What are the primary challenges faced by the industry today, and how can innovative solutions address these issues, hence driving growth?, Greeting : Telkom University
You are absolutely right.
Then there are the parts no one talks about (not even Joyce Carol Oates) the secret in the nickname ‘sweet science’. Boxing is chemically intoxicating. Whether you hit or get hit, the body triggers dopamine release, parallel to highs caused by painful spicy cuisine. Also, in the extreme end, where nature kicks in profound intoxicants that seem meant to deaden with ecstasy the psychological crush of creature annihilation itself (adenochrome), which can be neared in the rings.
We see continuously journalism’s oblivion to how many people have died in the professional end of the sport (hundreds). Is a game worth dying for?? Does anyone “play” boxing? The answers are no and no. It’s fundamentally dangerous, unless you change the equipment to prevent that, which can and has been done. But then taken away is satan’s seductive lure/vice – the danger for all involved.
There is the fascination, the involuntarily sadism of watching such contests. Oates talks about the real human complicity to view with secret attachment creature harm & destruction. How such heights are pushed when woman do this because it is even more forbidden for them who are not made for it! We forget that once upon a time it was illegal for women to box. The first licenses were granted in the 1970s. Thats a long time ago. Onward only has it crept.
Stranger and laughable still are comments from actual female pugilists who, defending the harm risk, say that all contestants should enter into the domain with “responsibility” – for the choice to do so. Small comfort for the unmighty. And one of the two head punchers is always unmighty in the end. The fact is, no one knows what will happen, until they get hit just right, once or the eightieth time.
Most remote of all to the unchurch is the action of demonic spirits on souls in combat sport. Exorcists certify to the existence of thousands of named spirits, which all specialize in human harm. Women can certainly be and are targets of spirits of masculinity, spirits of destruction, spirits of unwomanliness, spirits of fighting. No one is talking about this either. Except the Church.
Hard-hitting insights, resonating as deep wounds to sensitive souls.
One caveat: “The Church” which is talking about this does not include the current pope since he has not spoken to this issue. Unless I missed that?
Yes brother. I am one of them. I believe the Pope has prayed for the healing of all wounded souls, especially children.
Do you think he thinks about the babies slaughtered by all the abortionists whom he has praised and whose work he has praised?
Women should be as God created woman, the most excellent model the Blessed Virgin. Nonetheless, with attacks on women increasing in America a weakened police force, for safety women have a just reason to learn measures for defense. In some instances possessing a firearm.
Boxing and throwing punches is considered by some pontiffs immoral for men, and certainly much more so for women. Neither should women saturate the ranks of the military or law enforcement, other occupations that require male strength and temperament.
There are instances when women had to and indeed responded with great strength in tackling responsibilities that a man would have done for them, as I experienced in parishes out West when women were left alone with children in a raw, rural setting. Otherwise women in our modernist age are losing their authentic femininity seeking an egalitarian relationship with men by adopting male behavior. The movement for a female priesthood beginning with an ordained diaconate is a consequence. Part of this problem is the lack of manly leadership, men becoming increasingly effeminate, disinterested in assuming male responsibilities particularly toward women, the breakdown of the traditional family at the core. Young women, girls, need familial male role models as well as boys.
Agree thoroughly
Sex differences aside. Our cultural recreation has not evolved beyond ‘entertainment’ at Rome’s Colosseum. Boxing is violent and cruel, a ‘blood’ sport.
Hunting wild animals or shooting sick old dogs pales by comparison. Boxing consists of a ‘rational’ person punching, pummeling, and pounding another rational person until one loses consciousness or has the good sense to quit. If spectators continue to demand and pay for such ‘sport,’ boxers will perform it.
For a historical mid-transition fictional stop, I recommend the 1975 movie “Rollerball.” At least it is not “real.”
Look at kehlif and he has a physic of what any teenager would dream off! This madness has to end, transgender is straight from hell!
But if this boxer, whether of male or female DNA, by no choice of their own had been misidentified as female at birth in rural Algeria, what other identity would they assume until now?
It’s really quite a tragic situation for them if that was the case.
It is not about an identity, it is about protecting women form the person who went through male puberty and thus has a male body. Such a person should not fight women.
The boxer would likely have an unfair advantage it’s true but they can’t be held responsible for being misidentified at birth.
The Olympics committee are the ones who should be taking this more seriously and update their eligibility requirements/testing accordingly.
In as much as the objective of boxing is a “knockout”, best accomplished with a punch that causes so quick rotation of the head that the think layer of fluid that keeps the brain from into the skull is displaced and the brain contacts the skull. (Setting up a possible concussion or future CTE), why SHOULD anybody be boxing.
And given the history of football, nobody in their right mind plays-and if they do-they might very well lose those faculties.
The capacity for physical violence is not restricted to males. Boxing is an outlet, and these women are willing participants. Because this is the case, one could assume that it is within the temperament range of a female to engage in physical violence. It is not the repression of nurture that this article is concerned with but the repression of female aggression. Women are nurturing and violent on a sliding scale, as are men. Are women more likely to tend away from violent sport? Perhaps. But this does not speak to the nature of someone who happens to have a vagina. I am interested in the author’s claim that she is a feminist, because it seems like in order to make a claim that women should be given the same rights as men, they must be acknowledged to be psychologically similar enough to warrant that. The reason that we treat animals differently from humans is because of an acknowledged psychological gap, even though animals and humans share an origin. If we acknowledge that the principle human tendencies warrant equal treatment of humans, then female violence cannot be unnatural.